Day 1 of the Biden impeachment inquiries

[Primemuscle]

Do you even understand how an inquiry becomes an inquiry? And pretty much since there’s bank records (public that I’ve posted) whistleblowers, witnesses, texts, emails, photos and videos that tie him to bribery and treason is what established the inquiry to begin with as well as gathering more evidence. Keep making excuses and listening your leftist propaganda

Yes I do, thanks to Trump being twice impeached following a House impeachment inquiry.

'First, the House investigates through an impeachment inquiry. Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".'

The investigation has been going on at least since 2020 and maybe before. By now you'd think the committee had all the evidence it needs. If and when they do; this is what would happen (follow the link).

https://www.usa.gov/impeachment#:~:text=The%20impeachment%20process,of%20impeachment%20against%20an%20official.

[Coach is Back!]

Yes I do, thanks to Trump being twice impeached following a House impeachment inquiry.

'First, the House investigates through an impeachment inquiry. Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".'

The investigation has been going on at least since 2020 and maybe before. By now you'd think the committee had all the evidence it needs. If and when they do; this is what would happen (follow the link).

https://www.usa.gov/impeachment#:~:text=The%20impeachment%20process,of%20impeachment%20against%20an%20official.

Would that be the partisan impeachment that was all hearsay “evidence” that later exonerated him by trial? If I recall they had to alter evidence to even come up with anything that led to nothing

[Agnostic007]

You would think after all this time, they (James Comer, committee Chair since 2020 and the rest of the committee), would have gathered enough evidence to impeach President Biden. Apparently not. Looks like they will be gathering evidence 'until the cows come home' or the election of 2028 when President Biden's second term of office ends.

But what the heck, if it goes on that long it gives you several more years of claiming President Biden will be impeached because the committee has hard evidence to prove his supposed 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'

What was the relevance of asking if I knew who the head of oversight is? I assume you mean the House Oversight Committee.

Reading Coach's posts are like reading a flat earthers attempt to convince you the earth is flat. So full of earnest passion, lots of links and photos, so little facts and evidence. But if it keeps him and us entertained, what can it hurt.

[Coach is Back!]

Reading Coach's posts are like reading a flat earthers attempt to convince you the earth is flat. So full of earnest passion, lots of links and photos, so little facts and evidence. But if it keeps him and us entertained, what can it hurt.

It’s not a wonder why you’re in the minority of what normal people think…”detective”

[Agnostic007]

It’s not a wonder why you’re in the minority of what normal people think…”detective”

ok..."American"

[LurkerNoMore]

It’s not a wonder why you’re in the minority of what normal people think…”detective”

Says the person believing in fake birth certificates and stolen elections.  Neither that he can't prove.   

[Grape Ape]

You would think after all this time, they (James Comer, committee Chair since 2020 and the rest of the committee), would have gathered enough evidence to impeach President Biden. Apparently not. Looks like they will be gathering evidence 'until the cows come home' or the election of 2028 when President Biden's second term of office ends.

But what the heck, if it goes on that long it gives you several more years of claiming President Biden will be impeached because the committee has hard evidence to prove his supposed 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'

What was the relevance of asking if I knew who the head of oversight is? I assume you mean the House Oversight Committee.

From the other thread that was dropped where you were questioning evidence:

Well we do have evidence he lied in the debate when he said the laptop was proven fake.  And we do have evidence that he lied when he said he never talked to any of Hunter’s business associates.

And whistleblowers have shown of government agencies blocking the investgation.

And there is evidence of Hunter saying his Dad takes half his money.

And now there is evidence of Joe’s house being the address for money transfers to Hunter.

So now, why do you think Joe lied, and why were people in the government trying to sabotage the investigation?

You are "in the loop" on this:

https://nypost.com/2023/09/29/the-no-evidence-claim-about-biden-corruption-is-looking-increasingly-ridiculous/

[Primemuscle]

Would that be the partisan impeachment that was all hearsay “evidence” that later exonerated him by trial? If I recall they had to alter evidence to even come up with anything that led to nothing

I would not expect your recall to be anything but what you want it to be.

[Primemuscle]

Reading Coach's posts are like reading a flat earthers attempt to convince you the earth is flat. So full of earnest passion, lots of links and photos, so little facts and evidence. But if it keeps him and us entertained, what can it hurt.

It does not feel right to feel entertained by this sad clown. Better we take pity on him so that if and when he awakens out of his Trump trance there will be someone willing help him pick up the pieces of his broken life.

[Coach is Back!]

I would not expect your recall to be anything but what you want it to be.

Are you saying they didn’t alter evidence?

[Coach is Back!]

It does not feel right to feel entertained by this sad clown. Better we take pity on him so that if and when he awakens out of his Trump trance there will be someone willing help him pick up the pieces of his broken life.

I find it hilarious that agnostic claimed to be a Detective at one point who’s job it to collect evidence…..but actually doesn’t know what evidence is?

[B_B_C]

Reading Coach's posts are like reading a flat earthers attempt to convince you the earth is flat. So full of earnest passion, lots of links and photos, so little facts and evidence. But if it keeps him and us entertained, what can it hurt.

he is the most skilled trollmaster on this site 

[Agnostic007]

I find it hilarious that agnostic claimed to be a Detective at one point who’s job it to collect evidence…..but actually doesn’t know what evidence is?

And I find it even MORE hilarious that a "coach" would feel competent enough to call into question a guy whose job it was to identify "evidence" verses noise, conjecture, innuendo... and was good enough at that job to be promoted through the ranks based on his ability to analyze and comprehend the difference between "evidence" and bullshit. But here we are.. 2023, a "Coach" who thinks the election was stolen and there is evidence enough to support that claim, calling out a former Detective, who is backed up by .. shall we do this again?.. Local courts, Republican Election officials, State Courts, State Supreme Courts, Federal Courts, The United States Attorney General, the Vice President...  At some point, this has got to stop. Coach's opinion is not equal to mine.. he has no grasp of evidence. To pretend he does just allows him to further embarrass himself. His right wing buddies are doing this guy no favors standing on the sidelines...

I think we are well passed the "Claimed to be" at this point with me.. but the question is still there about Coaches mentality. I mean, to STILL think the election was rigged, you have to be pretty damn stupid... and I can't say this enough.. if it comes to light Coach is mentally challenged officially... I retract my statement. For a normal person to believe and post what Coach posts its just imbecilic.. if he is truly challenged, it's pretty impressive.

[Coach is Back!]

And I find it even MORE hilarious that a "coach" would feel competent enough to call into question a guy whose job it was to identify "evidence" verses noise, conjecture, innuendo... and was good enough at that job to be promoted through the ranks based on his ability to analyze and comprehend the difference between "evidence" and bullshit. But here we are.. 2023, a "Coach" who thinks the election was stolen and there is evidence enough to support that claim, calling out a former Detective, who is backed up by .. shall we do this again?.. Local courts, Republican Election officials, State Courts, State Supreme Courts, Federal Courts, The United States Attorney General, the Vice President...  At some point, this has got to stop. Coach's opinion is not equal to mine.. he has no grasp of evidence. To pretend he does just allows him to further embarrass himself. His right wing buddies are doing this guy no favors standing on the sidelines...

I think we are well passed the "Claimed to be" at this point with me.. but the question is still there about Coaches mentality. I mean, to STILL think the election was rigged, you have to be pretty damn stupid... and I can't say this enough.. if it comes to light Coach is mentally challenged officially... I retract my statement. For a normal person to believe and post what Coach posts its just imbecilic.. if he is truly challenged, it's pretty impressive.

Fuckin’ hilarious since multiple posters  on here besides myself including an attorney have posted actual evidence of bank records, emails, texts and videos that were actually entered into evidence (hard) that was the basis for the inquiry to begin with, and again, not hearsay.

Your turn, Junior

[Agnostic007]

Fuckin’ hilarious since multiple posters  on here besides myself including an attorney have posted actual evidence of bank records, emails, texts and videos that were actually entered into evidence (hard) that was the basis for the inquiry to begin with, and again, not hearsay.

Your turn, Junior

I have no problem with an inquiry. But some moron on this very site has called for an impeachment trial when the very GOP witnesses themselves when directly asked if there was enough evidence for an impeachment at that point said "NO". Oh hell, that was you... oops.. Did I type too fast?

[Coach is Back!]

I have no problem with an inquiry. But some moron on this very site has called for an impeachment trial when the very GOP witnesses themselves when directly asked if there was enough evidence for an impeachment at that point said "NO". Oh hell, that was you... oops.. Did I type too fast?

Yeah, you did. The witnesses aren’t the ones to determine what’s enough evidence or not. Your argument is THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Obviously there is.

[Agnostic007]

Yeah, you did. The witnesses aren’t the ones to determine what’s enough evidence or not. Your argument is THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Obviously there is.

again, straw man argument... If you can find where I said there is no evidence, please post it... you won't because you can't

[LurkerNoMore]

I find it hilarious that agnostic claimed to be a Detective at one point who’s job it to collect evidence…..but actually doesn’t know what evidence is?

I find it hilarious that he proved he was a detective with evidence and yet you can't understand what evidence is. 

[LurkerNoMore]

again, straw man argument... If you can find where I said there is no evidence, please post it... you won't because you can't

It's in that head of his.  Keeping that extra chromosome company.

[Agnostic007]

I find it hilarious that he proved he was a detective with evidence and yet you can't understand what evidence is.

I suppose I could ask the Gateway Pundit to publish an article full of innuendos that at some point intime I may have had something to do with Law Enforcement. I think that may be the only way to 100% convince him it's true.